March 02, 2015, 03:39:22 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DanielW

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
It's no quirk of screen, browser, or anything else. It's a matter of's not the amount, it's how the noise presents. I'll produce some direct comparison images and GIFs from DPR data so people can judge on their own screens. Canon sensors are still more blotchy in most instances. Even the a6000 has a better noise characteristic than most Canon crops, with the exception of the reds and brown/tan swatches. It does have more color noise, however it's cleaner, random color noise with more per-pixel frequency and's not blotched.

I use that term very explicitly and specifically...blotched. That refers to characteristic, not amount. Canon color noise has a nasty characteristic. It's one of the things hate bout the 5D III at low's the same blotchy characteristic in the shadows. Noise character matters just as much as noise amounts. As far as amounts go, there isn't a full stop difference between any one of the APS-C cameras. At most, on a normalized basis, there may be a third stop difference, but that's to be expected...barring color noise characteristic, the amount of noise overall is ultimately determined by total sensor area, Q.E., and maybe fill factor.

Jrista, could you please post a few examples of "good noise" and "nasty noise"? I am not sure I can tell one from the other.

How do you guys think the 7D2 compares to the 60D in terms of high ISO? One full stop better? Anyway, I don't care as much about noise as I care about nailing focus, so the 7D2 should be really what I'm after and I'm very likely upgrading soon.
Off topic (sorry  :-\): has anyone heard anything about a new 17-55 f/2.8 or something similar?

If the 7D2 is 200g lighter, I will have pre-ordered a copy.

Lighter than what?

EOS Bodies / Re: Jeff Cable reviews the 7Dm2
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:18:51 AM »
Seems like you'd want to go through and see if this hasn't already been posted here.

Yep. You got me on that one.   :P

EOS Bodies / Jeff Cable reviews the 7Dm2
« on: October 13, 2014, 10:11:54 PM »
Even though we are all still waiting for the unbiased, pixel-peeping reviews, it is sure good to see that pros are excited about the 7Dm2 in real-world minor tests.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:18:39 PM »
I will probably buy this camera because of the AF system alone, as by now I already have some respectable collection of almost-in-focus shots of my quick little man.
On the other hand, were I a videographer, a 7D mark-whatever would never be in my wish list. Horses for courses?


What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?
That question is about as smart as DXO or and lens review site boiling their whole results down into a single number...
But complacent reliance on market inertia has historical precedence, lets seewhat has been learned from those examples.

I definitely agree with you on that one. That's probably why Canon outsells other companies: it's rather a good system, not a good sensor or whatever piece. That's why you can't just boil it all down to a number or a single reason.
There must be a better way of saying "Canon's wrong, but the reasons are way too complex for you to understand", though. I was truly hoping for something better... :-)
About market inertia, well, I guess we will really have to see, even though I fail to see it on Canon's part except on the mirrorless market.

Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better.  You can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not.  There's your 'why' right there.

Thats a very simplified view of "market".  For example does the 5D3 sell better because people feel its in a sweet spot, or are there factors like depreciation rules that make a quick switch unviable?
The idea that sales of one particular item within a complete system in the context of a long term commitment is an accurate reflection of how well it fits unbiased customer demands(i.e. thats all we get, so it has to fit) is somewhere between naive and intentionally bad science.

What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?

I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?

Is that swedish food I'm smelling?

Photography Technique / Re: Thin dof posing/shooting advice
« on: April 30, 2014, 04:51:48 PM »
Marsu42, what if you tried introducing blur not from narrow DoF, but from motion? I know dogs aren't the easiest fellas to photograph, but I think that if you used a wide lens stopped down and from a relatively short distance, walking backwards in front of the subjects at their very speed, you might get an interesting angle and blur the background while keeping both subjects in focus. (Your camera should sound like a machine gun, though, to increase the odds of nailing it.)
I think it would work and add some cool effect to your shots.

Canon General / Re: In need of a "walk around" camera
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:38:56 PM »
My reason for recommending a Canon DSLR is that the DSLR is still by far the most versatile camera you can buy as long as you're not wanting something you can put in your pocket - which I don't think the OP is necessarily requesting.
The X100S has a leaf shutter, a flash that adds perfect fill, a built-in ND filter, much cleaner shadows than my 5D3, optical viewfinder + EVF, etc.  It's very versatile, and in ways that my Canon DSLRs cannot match.  It's not just about size, but it beats my DSLRs in that area too.  Both are great, but for different reasons.

What do you think of the x100s' AF, quod? Do you think it's fast enough for chasing a toddler around the house? (I'm not considering true action shots; for that I'll stick with my DSLR.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
« on: February 27, 2014, 03:42:48 PM »
However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design.

Where has all that crop vs FF discussion gone?  :P
I understand PP is a philosophical rather than technical argument and that there will be no winner.
Take for instance David Nightingale's B&W work. It's terrific. (I highly recommend this course of his: He manages to get B&W images that really stand out, even though they're not accurate representations of the real scene. There's a dull photo of a wrecked ship that he converts to B&W with such a dramatic sky that you think it's Noah's ark and the flood is about to come. It's far from an accurate representation, but it looks rather good. Right? Wrong? I don't care.
On the other hand, I've learned through the years that correcting in PS is not my thing. I'm not into removing power lines from an image; it feels (to me!) like cheating. I do crop to hide a few things, however... :)
To each his own, but to me it works like this: I like PP when it helps you get something that you could not achieve in camera, but I'm not fond of it for "correcting" things.
I like this one very much, from Zack Arias: “If you find yourself out shooting a client and you’re sayin’ in your head ‘oh I’ll just fix that later in photoshop’ stop what you’re doing and slap yourself as hard as you can.’”

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 19, 2014, 01:28:19 PM »
Might be worth checking out some of the images produced on crop sensors in places like 500px. Here's a link for starters:

FF is disproportionately expensive, but if you can afford it and if you get more pleasure from it, why not ?

Man, don't you ever post a link like that again! Now how can I blame my camera for the lousy pics I take? :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18